Constitutional monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of

state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or
blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in that an
absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not
legally bound by any constitution.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch

may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the
constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister
who is the head of government and exercises

effective political powerIn the past, constitutional monarchy has co-existed with fascist
and quasi-fascist constitutions – such as Fascist Italy and Francoist Spain – and with
military dictatorships. However on other occasions constitutional monarchs have played a
crucial role in thwarting coups d'état and the overthrow of democratic institutions by
fascist or communist movements. Examples include the attempted 23-F coup in Spain in
1981, or the 1981 and 1985 coup attempts in Thailand. In both cases action taken by the
king proved decisive.

Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados,

Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica,
Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, New
Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tuvalu, and the United
Kingdom.

There also exist today several federal constitutional monarchies. In these countries, each
subdivision has a distinct government and head of government, but all subdivisions share
a monarch who is head of state of the federation as a united whole. The latest country that
was completely transformed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional democratic
monarchy is Bhutan.

Constitutional and absolute monarchy

Constitutional monarchy in the European tradition

In Britain, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional monarchy restricted by

laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, although limits on
the power of the monarch ('A Limited Monarchy') are much older than that (see Magna
Carta). Today the monarchy in Britain is politically neutral and by convention the role is
largely ceremonial.[1] No person may accept significant public office without swearing an
oath of allegiance to the Queen.[2]

Constitutional monarchy occurred in continental Europe after the French revolution.

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered the first monarch proclaiming himself as an
embodiment of the nation, rather than as a divinely-appointed ruler; this interpretation of
monarchy is germane to continental constitutional monarchies. G.W.F. Hegel, in his
Philosophy of Right (1820), gave it a philosophical justification that concurred with
evolving contemporary political theory and the Protestant Christian view of natural law.
Hegel's forecast of a constitutional monarch with very limited powers whose function is
to embody the national character and provide constitutional continuity in times of
emergency was reflected in the development of constitutional monarchies in Europe and
Japan. His forecast of the form of government suitable to the modern world may be seen
as prophetic: the largely ceremonial offices of president in some modern parliamentary
democracies in Europe and e.g. Israel can be perceived as elected or appointed versions
of Hegel's constitutional monarch; the Russian and French presidents, with their stronger
powers, may also be regarded in Hegelian terms as wielding powers suitable to the
embodiment of the national will.

[edit] Modern constitutional monarchy

As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was quite a powerful figure, head of

the executive branch even though his or her power was limited by the constitution and the
elected parliament. Some of the framers of the US Constitution may have conceived of
the president as being an elected constitutional monarch, as the term was understood in
their time, following Montesquieu's account of the separation of powers.[3]

The present concept of constitutional monarchy developed in the United Kingdom, where
it was the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister, who
had become those who exercised power, with the monarchs voluntarily ceding it and
contenting themselves with the titular position. In many cases even the monarchs
themselves, while still at the very top of the political and social hierarchy, were given the
status of "servants of the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian view. In the course of
France's July Monarchy, Louis-Philippe I was styled "King of the French" rather than
"King of France".

Following the Unification of Germany, Otto von Bismarck rejected the British model. In
the kind of constitutional monarchy established under the Constitution of the German
Empire which Bismarck inspired, the Kaiser retained considerable actual executive
power, and the Prime Minister needed no parliamentary vote of confidence and ruled
solely by the imperial mandate. However, this model of constitutional monarchy was
discredited and abolished following Germany's defeat in the First World War. Later on,
Fascist Italy could also be considered as a "constitutional monarchy" of a kind, in the
sense that there was a king as the titular head of state while actual power was held by
Benito Mussolini under a constitution. This eventually discredited the Italian monarchy
and led to its abolition in 1946. After the Second World War, surviving European
monarchies almost invariably adopted some variant of the constitutional monarchy model
originally developed in Britain.

In present terms, the difference between a parliamentary democracy that is a

constitutional monarchy and one that is a republic is considered more one of detail than
of substance. In both cases, the titular head of state - monarch or president - serves the
traditional role of embodying and representing the nation, while the actual governing is
carried out by a cabniet composed predominantly of elected Members of Parliament. In
some cases, constitutional monarchies have been dubbed "crowned republics".[4]

Today constitutional monarchies are mostly associated with Western European countries
such as the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain,
Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Sweden. However, the two most populous
constitutional monarchies in the world are in Asia: Japan and Thailand. In such cases it is
the prime minister who holds the day-to-day powers of governance, while the King or
Queen (or other monarch, such as a Grand Duke, in the case of Luxembourg, or Prince in
the case of Monaco and Liechtenstein) retains only residual (but not always minor)
powers. The powers of the monarch differ between countries. In the Netherlands,
Denmark and in Belgium, for example, the Monarch formally appoints a representative to
preside over the creation of a coalition government following a parliamentary election,
while in Norway the King chairs special meetings of the cabinet.

In nearly all cases, the monarch is still the nominal chief executive, but is bound by
constitutional convention to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Only a few monarchies
(most notably Japan and Sweden) have amended their constitutions so that the monarch is
no longer even the nominal chief executive.

The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the
sixteen Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II.[5] Unlike some of their continental
European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth
realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of
extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government.
An instance of a Governor General exercising his power was during the 1975 Australian
constitutional crisis, when the Australian Prime Minister of the time, Gough Whitlam,
was dismissed by the Governor-General. The Australian senate had threatened to block
the Government's budget by refusing to pass the associated appropriation bills. On 11
November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break
the deadlock. When he went to seek the Governor-General's approval of the election, the
Governor-General instead dismissed him as Prime Minister, and shortly thereafter
installed leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all
parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies were
able to secure passage of the appropriation bills, and the Governor-General dissolved
Parliament for a double dissolution election. Fraser and his government were returned
with a massive majority. This led to much speculation among Whitlam's supporters as to
whether this use of the Governor-General's reserve powers was appropriate, and whether
Australia should become a republic. Among supporters of constitutional monarchy
however, the experience confirmed the value of the monarchy as a source of checks and
balances against elected politicians who might seek powers in excess of those conferred
by their respective constitutions, and ultimately as a safeguard against dictatorship.

In Thailand's constitutional monarchy, the monarch is recognized as the Head of State,

Head of the Armed Forces, Upholder of the Buddhist Religion, and Defender of the
Faith. The current King, Bhumibol Adulyadej, is the longest reigning current monarch in
the world and in all of Thailand's history.[6] Bhumibol has reigned through several
political changes in the Thai government. He has played an influential role in each
incident, often acting as mediator between disputing political opponents. (See Bhumibol's
role in Thai Politics.) While the monarch retains some powers from the constitution, most
particular is Lèse majesté which protects the image and ability of the monarch to play a
role in politics and carries modest criminal penalties for violators. Generally, the Thai
people are reverent of Bhumibol. Much of his social influence comes from that and the
fact that the royal family is often involved in socio-economic improvement efforts.

In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centres around when it is
appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act,
political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen
to be compromised in favour of a partisan goal, while some political scientists champion
the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by
politicians.